Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 330 views

    Bernardo vs. Bernardo Statcon

    Uploaded by

    Nichole Lanuza
    This case involves a dispute over the purchase of a lot that was formerly part of the Tambobong Estate in Malabon, Rizal. The estate was purchased by the Republic of the Philippines from the Roman Catholic Church under a law allowing expropriation of private lands for resale to bona fide tenants or occupants. The petitioner Bernardo applied to purchase the lot but was contested by other Bernardo applicants who claimed preferential right as bona fide occupants. The court ultimately held that the petitioners were not entitled to preference as bona fide occupants because the petitioner's occupancy of the lot was merely as a licensee of the respondents, and he had been required to vacate the lot since 1945, prior to

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Bernardo vs. Bernardo Statcon

    Uploaded by

    Nichole Lanuza
    330 views1 page
    This case involves a dispute over the purchase of a lot that was formerly part of the Tambobong Estate in Malabon, Rizal. The estate was purchased by the Republic of the Philippines from the Roman Catholic Church under a law allowing expropriation of private lands for resale to bona fide tenants or occupants. The petitioner Bernardo applied to purchase the lot but was contested by other Bernardo applicants who claimed preferential right as bona fide occupants. The court ultimately held that the petitioners were not entitled to preference as bona fide occupants because the petitioner's occupancy of the lot was merely as a licensee of the respondents, and he had been required to vacate the lot since 1945, prior to

    Original Description:

    notes

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute over the purchase of a lot that was formerly part of the Tambobong Estate in Malabon, Rizal. The estate was purchased by the Republic of the Philippines from the Roman Catholic Church under a law allowing expropriation of private lands for resale to bona fide tenants or occupants. The petitioner Bernardo applied to purchase the lot but was contested by other Bernardo applicants who claimed preferential right as bona fide occupants. The court ultimately held that the petitioners were not entitled to preference as bona fide occupants because the petitioner's occupancy of the lot was merely as a licensee of the respondents, and he had been required to vacate the lot since 1945, prior to

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    330 views1 page

    Bernardo vs. Bernardo Statcon

    Uploaded by

    Nichole Lanuza
    This case involves a dispute over the purchase of a lot that was formerly part of the Tambobong Estate in Malabon, Rizal. The estate was purchased by the Republic of the Philippines from the Roman Catholic Church under a law allowing expropriation of private lands for resale to bona fide tenants or occupants. The petitioner Bernardo applied to purchase the lot but was contested by other Bernardo applicants who claimed preferential right as bona fide occupants. The court ultimately held that the petitioners were not entitled to preference as bona fide occupants because the petitioner's occupancy of the lot was merely as a licensee of the respondents, and he had been required to vacate the lot since 1945, prior to

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    BERNARDO vs.

    BERNARDO

    FACTS: On December 31, 1947, the Republic of the Philippines purchased from
    Roman Catholic Church the estate known as the “Capeliana de Tambobong” in
    Malabon, Rizal under the provisions of Sec. 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 539, which
    authorizes the expropriation of purchase of private lands and that lands acquired
    thereunder should be subdivided into lots, for resale at reasonable prices to " their
    bona fide tenants or occupants."

    Respondent Bernardo applied to the Rural Progress Administration for the


    purchase of the lot in question. Petitioners Enrique Bernardo, et al., contested the
    application and claimed preferential right to such purchase. Subsequently, the Rural
    Progress Administration resolved to recognize the petitioners as entitled to
    preference.

    ISSUE: WON the petitioners are entitled to such preference

    HELD: No. The term "bona fide occupant" (admittedly petitioner is not a tenant) has
    been defined as "one who supposes he has a good title and knows of no adverse
    claim" (Philips vs. Stroup, 17 Atl. 220,221); "one who not only honestly supposes
    himself to be vested with true title but is ignorant that the title is contested by any
    other person claiming a superior right to it" (Gresham vs. Ware to that of a
    possessor in good faith in our Civil Law (Civil Code of 1889, art. 433; new Civil Code,
    art. 526). The essence of the bona fides or good faith, therefore, lies in honest belief
    in the validity of one's right, ignorance of a superior claim, and absence of intention
    to over each another.
    The petitioner Enrique Bernardo falls short of this standard: for the
    precarious nature of his occupancy, as mere licensee of respondents, duty bound to
    protect and restore that possession to its real and legitimate holders upon demand,
    could never be hidden the Tambobong Estate, petitioner had already parted with
    the house that was his remaining link with the occupancy of the lot; and since 1945,
    even before the Government's purchase, he had been required to vacate.
    Thus bereft of all stable interest in the land, petitioner nevertheless seeks to
    turn respondent's past deferential regard to his own advantage, and to exploit his
    gratuitous stay at respondent's expense for the purpose of ousting his benefactors
    and wiping out the investment that the latter, and their predecessors in interest, had
    established and preserved charged for the lot in question. That the law, in preferring
    "bona fide occupants," intended to protect or sanction such utter disregard of fair
    dealing may well be doubted.

    You might also like